2010 legislative year Environmental Scorecard€¦ · The story of the 2010 California Environmental Scorecard is just as much about how we stopped multiple egregious attacks on the

California Environmental Scorecard2010 l eg i s lat i ve year

38The California League of Conservation Voters is the political

action arm of California’s environmental movement. For 38 years,

CLCV’s mission has been to defend and strengthen the laws

that safeguard the wellness of our neighborhoods and the

beauty of our great state. We work to elect environmentally

responsible candidates to state and federal office who will join

us in our mission. And, once they’re elected, we hold them

accountable to a strong environmental agenda.

y e a r s o f p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n f o r e n v i r o n m e n ta l p r o t e c t i o n

01 A Message from the Chief Executive Officer

02 What CLCV Does

04 The Year in Review

09 Best and Worst of 2010

14 Snapshot of the Numbers

18 Bill Descriptions

24 Know the Score, Take Action

25 Explanation of Icons

26 Governor and Senate Scorecard

28 Assembly Scorecard

32 Board, Staff, and Thanks

ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s

d e a r c o n s e r vat i o n v o t e r :

The story of the 2010 California Environmental Scorecard is just as much about how we stopped multiple egregious attacks on the environment as it is about how we helped pass positive bills that were ultimately signed into law.

The tough economic climate emboldened those who sought to weaken or dismantle environmental protection rules. Anti-environmental legislators introduced dozens of so-called “regulatory reform” bills and bills to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result, CLCV and our allies in the environmental community and the legislature played defense more than offense in 2010. The good news: We successfully eliminated all of the most serious threats to the environment.

Along the way we delivered several important bills to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk, including bills dealing with energy storage, recycling, water conservation, pesticides, clean energy jobs, and oil spill prevention. The governor vetoed seven bills and signed nine into law, thus sealing his average lifetime score at 53 percent. He leaves a mixed legacy as a governor who championed some bold issues—notably, solutions to climate change—but was less reliable on others, including protecting public health and state parks.

While defending and advancing environmental progress in the state legislature, CLCV was also hard at work on our election priorities. From the top of the ticket all the way to the races for Assembly and state Senate, CLCV-endorsed candidates racked up the victories in the general election with an overall 94% success rate. We helped Senator Barbara Boxer beat back a serious challenge from climate change denier Carly Fiorina. Our “Build a Greener Governor” campaign helped to elevate the environment as a major and defining issue in the governor’s race. Thanks in part to his strong “green” credentials, Jerry Brown earned CLCV’s endorsement and was—once again—elected governor of the Golden State.

In addition to electing strong environmental champions, another Election Day victory was the defeat of Proposition 23, Texas oil companies’ attempt to repeal California’s first-in-the-nation climate and clean energy law. We formed a powerful coalition with clean tech leaders, labor groups, and public health, social justice, and consumer advocates to defend the state’s clean air and clean energy legacy. The Los Angeles Times said it best: “No environmental campaign in U.S. history can boast the level of activism in California” in 2010. Voters heard us loud and clear and crushed Prop 23 by a landslide. As a result, California continues to lead the nation on climate and energy solutions.

As we prepare for the new challenges presented by open primaries and redistricting—both of which will impact the 2012 election—we thank you for helping us win the tough fights and for your commitment to creating a greener California for future generations.

Sincerely,

Warner Chabot, CEO

California’s familiesh o w c l c v p r o t e c t s

2

We Elect Environmental ChampionsThe single most important contribution CLCV makes to enhance the lives of Californians is helping elect candidates who are committed to protecting the environment. CLCV conducts rigorous research on candidates and concentrates on the races in which our resources can make a difference. We back our endorsements with expertise, assisting candidates with the media, fundraising, and grassroots organizing strategies they need to win. We educate voters and then get out the vote on Election Day.

We Fight For Environmental LawsWe aggressively lobby on the most important environmental bills in Sacramento and make sure lawmakers hear from environmental voters. Each year, CLCV members generate thousands of letters, phone calls, and emails to specific targets in the California legislature to support strong environmental policies. Our targeted Member Action Campaigns, in which we call our members and pass them directly through to their legislators, help swing key votes at crucial moments. The CLCV Education Fund convenes Green California—a coalition of 70 groups that collectively represent more than 1 million Californians—to maximize the effectiveness of California’s environmental community. Green California identifies priority legislation, communicates priorities to our legislative colleagues, and marshals our collective resources in support of strong legislation that addresses the state’s most pressing environmental issues.

We Hold Your Lawmakers AccountableAt the end of each legislative year, we publish the California Environmental Scorecard, which cuts through political rhetoric and records the most important environmental votes. Published annually for nearly four decades, the Scorecard—distributed to CLCV members, friends, partner organizations, and the news media—continues to be the authoritative source on the state’s environmental politics.

California’s families

3california environmental scorecard

and natural heritage

4

Holding the LineAfter two years of increasing budget deficits and emboldened attacks on environmental protections, 2010 found the environmental community deep in the trenches. The objective of the community this year was a simple and sobering “hold the line!” After a bruising 2009, when only five of the top fifteen environmental priority bills were signed into law and with another budget deficit close to $20 billion, our expectations for the 2010 legislative session were modest at best. With many non-profit coffers already strained by the multi-year recession and the intensity of a statewide election year, many non-governmental organizations tempered their legislative agendas to conserve resources for the challenges later in the year.

Moreover, in a climate where health care, child care, and education funding at all levels had been cut to the

2010t h e y e a r i n r e v i e w

breaking point, environmental advocates found themselves dispelling the false dichotomy of jobs versus environment at every turn. Enacting and even maintaining existing environmental protections had never been more difficult.

Strong Allies in the StormGiven the difficult backdrop, the environmental community was fortunate to have enjoyed significant support from leadership in both the Senate and Assembly. In his second year as Senate President pro Tempore, Senator Darrell Steinberg and his staff continued to offer solid support for our agenda. The election of John Pérez as Speaker of the Assembly this year was a particularly welcome event. As a former member of CLCV’s Board of Directors, Speaker Pérez was quick to show his pro-environment colors.


He appointed strong environmental champions to chair the most influential committees. Nancy Skinner became chair of the powerful Rules Committee, Wes Chesbro took the helm of the Natural Resources Committee, and Jared Huffman remained chair of the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. Our good fortunes were further enhanced when Speaker Pérez hired Pete Price, CLCV’s own long-standing legislative advocate, as his senior environmental advisor.

Attempts to Dismantle Environmental ProtectionBy mid-February no fewer than 33 “regulatory reform” bills and 18 bills that sought to “reform” (or, too frequently, weaken) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had been introduced or carried over from 2009. Largely the domain of the Republicans, these bills also boasted some moderate Democratic authors. The regulatory reform bills focused on “streamlining” the rulemaking process and shackling — in some cases eviscerating — the authority of agencies such as the Air Resources Board, the Energy Commission, and even OSHA. Several measures, including Senator Wyland’s SB 1263, were flagrant efforts to repeal, roll back, or hinder the implementation of California’s landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32. Others would have piled on multiple layers of additional review and analyses by outside organizations that would have not only delayed effective implementation of scores of current public health and safety laws, but also racked up exorbitant price tags for redundant studies and legal challenges.

Several groups lobbied hard against this rash of bad bills as they moved into their first policy committees. Fortunately, all but a small handful were held or not even heard. Some of the more modest calls for reform were legitimate; in those cases, the environmental community worked with legislators and state agencies to improve parts of their rulemaking process.

California Environmental Quality Act on the Chopping Block — AGAINThe power of local governments and citizens to participate in the development of their communities is the heart of CEQA. Unfortunately, the economic downturn gave cover to those who stand to gain from squelching that public participation. After three egregious CEQA exemptions were signed into law in 2009 — AB 1318 (V.M. Pérez), SB 827 (Wright), and AB 81 x3 (Hall) — some legislators took the opportunity to seek a slew of new jailbreaks. Carrying the water for the governor, Assemblymember Chuck Calderon and Senator Lou Correa proffered the most brazen of all — the identical measures AB 1805 and SB 1010 — which would have let 125 high profile projects off the hook by exempting their environmental analysis from judicial review.

These two bad bills (and fourteen others like them) were summarily defeated in committee. Legislators had promised in 2009 that the exemptions they passed for a potential football stadium in the City of Industry would not set a precedent. It took a strong and sustained effort from environmental justice and

6

other groups to remind legislators of that promise. CLCV is proud to have joined with its allies to stop these short-sighted plans, though we will no doubt have to resume the fight in 2011.

All Eyes on the Ballot BoxThe most significant fight in 2010 for clean air, water, and communities was waged at the ballot box. With two gubernatorial candidates who couldn’t have had more profoundly different environmental values, scores of state districts and offices up for grabs, and a dozen critically important propositions in the balance, all eyes and vast resources were focused on the November elections. The prospect of losing the state’s first-in-the-nation climate and clean energy law to a cynical, self-serving, and Texas oil company-backed repeal hung over the environmental community — and California’s thriving clean technology business community — like a Damoclean sword. Early in the

year, before the so-called “Logue Initiative” (named for its putative author, Assemblymember Dan Logue) had even qualified for the November ballot, a campaign to defeat it was formed. Hundreds of community, health, business, and faith-based organizations joined with environmental groups in defense of the law that has already set California on a path to sustainable development and economic revitalization. The unprecedented campaign and grassroots organizing efforts paid off. The “Dirty Energy Proposition” (Prop 23) was defeated by 61% of voters — the largest margin of any measure on the ballot.

The passage of another ballot initiative, Proposition 25, also offered environmentalists hope that the years of endless budget stalemates would draw to a close, as state budgets will now be able to pass with a simple majority vote. Unfortunately, the simultaneous passage of Proposition 26 undercut state and local governments’ authority to fund essential programs with fees that could be passed with a majority vote;


Prop 26 now deems many of those fees as taxes needing a 2/3 vote. Also disappointing was the failure of Proposition 21, which would have provided urgently needed funding for state park maintenance and operations.

Water Bond and Oil Drilling Proposals PuntedTwo other high-profile natural resource management issues were taken off the table this year by extraneous events. Largely due to the state’s dire economic climate, the $11.2 billion water bond scheduled for the November ballot was deferred until 2012 at the request of the governor and subsequent action by the legislature. On another front, the proposed Tranquillon Ridge oil extraction project off the Santa Barbara coast was shelved within days of the news of the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

Pushing Forth a Proactive Agenda Amidst a Flurry of Bad BillsRecognizing that large-scale, big-ticket environmental fixes wouldn’t flourish in the current political climate, legislators introduced fewer pro-environment bills than usual. There were a dozen or more good two-year bills (introduced in 2009) awaiting action in 2010. CLCV and our partners in Green California narrowed the field to track 87 priority bills in five broad categories. Of these, one out of four were “bad bills” opposed by multiple environmental organizations – a higher proportion than ever before.

Of the remaining measures that garnered environmental support, 22 were identified as high priorities and have been chosen as the Scorecard bills. As usual, the scope of bills spanned an impressive array of issues ranging from net energy metering to ocean acidification; from sustainable community planning to forest carbon sequestration; from pesticide poisoning to product stewardship. As expected, capital-dependent projects and new state and local programs were few and far between. When money is tight, legislators get creative. They carefully worked their bills to cost the state less than $150,000, the threshold to avoid being placed into Appropriations

“Suspense files” in either house (where bills can languish or flourish, frequently depending on their authors’ relative standing with leadership). Even then, few important bills escaped the Appropriations axe.

Casualties of Corporate CloutOf the casualties in the legislature, AB 1998 (bans single-use plastic bags), SB 722 (33% renewable portfolio) and SB 797 (bans toxic chemical in baby bottles) were arguably the highest priority and the most disappointing. Both AB 1998 and SB 797 failed on the Senate floor after heavy pressure from the American Chemistry Council. SB 722 died during the last night of session, a victim of procedural delay tactics by obstructionist legislators that prevented a final vote in the Senate.

In such a lean year, one popular concept among legislators was “extended producer responsibility” (EPR), which means that manufacturers must take responsibility for the eventual end life and disposal of their products. Some manufacturers’ groups are on board with the idea, such as that of the carpet industry (see “Best of 2010” on p. 11). However, SB 1100 (Corbett), which would have created an EPR program for discarded batteries, buckled under intense industry lobbying and was not put to a final vote on the Assembly floor.

8

Of the 14 highest priority bills that CLCV actively supported this year that were enrolled, eight were signed by the governor. These include AB 2289 (Eng), which adds new standards and testing methods to the Smog Check program; AB 2514 (Skinner), directing the CPUC to determine targets for new energy storage systems; AB 2398 (J. Pérez), which creates a state carpet recycling program to be funded and operated by carpet manufacturers; and SB 918 (Pavley), which conserves water by allowing safer storage of recycled water in groundwater basins and surface reservoirs.

At least ten important measures stalled in the legislature this year, falling victim to the clout of the growing “mod Dem” caucus in both the Senate and Assembly which by some counts has doubled in size in the past three to four years. With stalwart environmental champions Senator Wiggins and the late Senator Oropeza absent much of this year due to illness, environmental advocates found themselves struggling to find the final two or three votes to get their bills off the Senate floor. We faced similar challenges in the Assembly where at times as many as ten Democrats could be counted as swing votes. As in the case of Senator Pavley’s SB 797, it took a strong Speaker to get some bills off the Assembly floor.

In addition to the early demise of the scores of bad

Measured Gains — But Progress, Nonetheless

CEQA and regulatory reform bills, our collective efforts were successful in defeating two late runs on weakening the state’s once-through power plant cooling policy (AB 1552, Bradford) and a late-in-the-game effort to provide big box stores with a CEQA exemption (AB 1581, Torres).

Keen readers will also notice that overall average voting scores are up this year from last year by 5–10 percent. On first read, you’d think, “Great! What is everyone complaining about?” The difference is that in 2009, two bad bills made it to the floor of both houses (and one was even signed into law) — which dinged several legislators’ scores and brought the averages down. This year, we were able to kill many of those bad bills in committee before they were given a floor vote. Thus, averages look better this year with relatively similar performance from the legislature — except for the dozens of bad bills we killed in committee!

With the decidedly mixed voter performance on ballot initiatives relating to the environment, we have our work cut out for us in 2011. The good news is CLCV helped elect a strong class of legislators and a “Green Governor,” and environmentalists are emboldened by our show of community power in the defeat of Proposition 23.


2010t h e b e s t o f

Harm Averted In a year of modest legislative accomplishments, our success has been measured by the harm we averted as well as by the progress we made. To this end, the environmental community is indebted to the Chairs and pro-environmental members of the key policy committees who held back the wave of bad legislation early in the year and even later when the gut-and-amends surfaced.

10

Cheers to the Chairs Most notable are the Senate Environmental Quality Committee chaired by Senator Joe Simitian and the Assembly Natural Resources Committee chaired by Assemblymember Wes Chesbro. These two committees held the line on scores of bad bills in their committees, especially the efforts to weaken CEQA and gut or obfuscate the environmental rulemaking processes. Supported by their able staff, these committees listened to hours of testimony and often the spurious arguments that pitted jobs against environmental protection. Despite intense pressure from special interest groups and even their own party colleagues, these legislators found the fortitude to do the right thing time and time again. Together with Senator Simitian, Senators Alan Lowenthal, Ellen Corbett, Loni Hancock, and Fran Pavley have been unflinching environmental allies in the Senate. In the Assembly we find Chair Chesbro and his colleagues Kevin De León, Julia Brownley, Jerry Hill, Nancy Skinner, and Jared Huffman in the vanguard of the defense of our environmental agenda.

Both committees with jurisdiction over water, parks and wildlife are similarly stellar in their unflinching commitment to strong environmental protection. As Chair of Senate Natural Resources and Water, Fran Pavley is a formidable adversary to those who wish to undermine California’s rich resource legacy. Her colleagues on the committee, Senators Kehoe, Lowenthal, Padilla, Wolk, and Simitian, are in turn unabashed allies of the environment.

In his role as chair of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, Jared Huffman has steered his committee through many difficult issues and been in the forefront of numerous keystone issues, including water policy, reform of the Department of Fish and Game, and extended producer responsibility.

The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee complements the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in its oversight of all matters relating to hazardous materials and products. Assemblymember Nava has consistently provided the leadership to protect our businesses and communities from toxic contamination. And Assemblymember Mike Feuer, as a member of the Toxics Committee but also

as Assembly Majority Policy Leader, continues to be one of the most skilled, hard-working, and thoughtful environmental advocates in Sacramento.

We would be remiss not to recognize Senate President pro Tem Steinberg, Speaker Pérez, and Nancy Skinner, Chair of the Assembly Rules Committee, who have been called on more than once this year to deliver their caucuses on difficult environmental votes. We greatly value their support.

Guiding through Difficult Waters In addition to these environmental heroes we wish to acknowledge the team of legislators that has helped CLCV work the Assembly and Senate floors when difficult votes come up. For the fourth year in a row, Hector De La Torre has been a champion on the Assembly floor, working his colleagues for votes urgently needed to advance priority environmental bills. De La Torre was joined by Jerry Hill, Bill Monning, Bob Blumenfield, and Nancy Skinner again this year in this charge. For help on the Senate Floor we relied on Senators Alan Lowenthal, Fran Pavley, and pro Tem Steinberg and staff to guide us through those difficult waters.

Progress Made A few bills warrant special mention. Included in this list are AB 1405 (De León and V.M. Pérez) which would have established the Community Benefits Fund to direct a portion of revenues generated from AB 32 implementation to help Californians who are least able to confront the expected impacts of climate change at the local level. Although it was vetoed by the Governor, the coalition supporting AB 1405 was one of the broadest and most diverse we’ve ever seen. AB 1963 (Nava), signed by the Governor, will enhance agency cooperation and oversight and strengthen pesticide poisoning prevention of farm workers who handle pesticides. Although SB 656 died, AB 2304 (Huffman) provides protection to the state’s groundwater resources by requiring local water agencies to map recharge areas as a condition for receiving a state grant or loan. Given the challenges faced by our wildlife custodians, another Huffman bill, AB 2376, will direct the Natural Resources Agency to convene a cabinet-level panel and a blue ribbon task force to develop a strategic vision for the Department


of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission.

Despite the stalling of the plastic bag ban in the Senate, two of the three extended producer responsibility measures were sent to — and signed — by the governor. The carpet industry supported the industry-financed fee created in AB 2398 (J. Pérez), which will fund a statewide carpet stewardship plan that will ultimately stimulate demand for recycled carpet products — a win-win for the state and industry. Similarly, AB 1343 (Huffman) will reduce the financial burden on local governments by requiring paint manufacturers to develop and implement a program to collect, transport, and process waste paint.

Last but not least, after 13 years of research and negotiation with the auto industry, SB 346 (Kehoe) will establish a firm phase-out date for copper in brakepads — the source of the most prevalent aquatic copper toxicity in our urban and near-shore waterbodies.

Perfect Scores Every year, legislators must decide how to vote on difficult environmental proposals where reasonable minds can disagree. So perfection isn’t a prerequisite to earn our appreciation. But in a term-limited legislative world, we are grateful for those legislators who consistently support the environment throughout their careers. In 2011, ten returning legislators have lifetime 100% scores: Fran Pavley and Mark Leno (2 years in the Senate and 6 years in the Assembly each); Julia Brownley, Mike Feuer, and Jared Huffman (4 years in the Assembly); Tom Ammiano, Bonnie Lowenthal, Bill Monning, and Nancy Skinner (2 years in the Assembly); and Mike Gatto (1 year in the Assembly). Lori Saldaña is termed out of the Assembly with a perfect score after 6 years in office.

12

In a year with an unprecedented number of anti-environmental and public health and safety bills, a large number of candidates are vying for the dubious honor of being named among the Worst of 2010.

energy standards. Fortunately, cooler legislative heads prevailed and these bills were defeated or held in committee.

On a lesser scale, but in some respects more troubling, was the version of AB 2529 (Fuentes) that emerged from Assembly Appropriations, which Fuentes chairs. First Fuentes held AB 2299 (Blakeslee), a thoughtful if still problematic bill to subject regulations proposed by the Air Resources Board to external review, in Appropriations Committee. Then he gutted his ill-conceived AB 2529 and added in the contents of the Blakeslee bill, but applied it to additional high profile agencies, including the Energy Commission and the Department of Fish and Game. Rigorous opposition by labor and environmental groups succeeded in stopping the bill in the Senate.

Who Wants a Minister of Land Control in Sacramento? No fewer than four identical attempts were made to give new and sweeping powers to a political appointee to control land use decisions at the expense of civic participation. AB 1805 (Calderon), SB 1010 (Correa), as well as special session bills

2010t h e w o r s t o f

Wait...You Want More Bureaucracy? Among the most alarming attacks against the California Air Resources Board were measures — sponsored by those who claim to want less government — that would have dramatically increased the red tape required for our regulatory agencies to do their jobs, thus effectively grinding the process to a halt. One measure, AB 1949 (Logue), would have required that every single state agency review every one of its hundreds — or thousands — of rules and regulations every five years.

Another similar but constitutionally more troubling measure was AB 2466 (Smyth), which sought to delay regulations by an additional 60 days and make these administrative rules subject to additional legislative review. Senators Dutton, Wyland, Huff, and Wright all appeared to vie for the distinction of introducing the largest number of most reactionary bills. Together these four legislators authored 14 bills that would have repealed AB 32, outlawed cap and trade, and drowned the agencies in new review requirements or reversed policies on renewable


AB x8 37 and SB x8 42 by the same authors, sought to give the Administration the authority to waive judicial review — the only mechanism available to the public to ensure that project reviews are truthful and accurate — on up to 125 high profile projects chosen exclusively by the Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing. As extreme as they were misguided, these bills were summarily dismissed in their first policy committees early in the year, but not before the environmental community could reel from the sheer brazenness of the move and the fact that all four bills were being authored by Democrats at the behest of the Republican Governor.

A more limited attempt at a CEQA exemption also failed at the end of the session, when environmental and some labor organizations succeeded in stopping AB 1581 (Torres). The bill began as an understandable effort to boost jobs by making it easier to reuse some of the thousands of big box stores that have been shuttered in the recession. But big box retail is often a political hot potato, and it proved so with AB 1581. Rumors swirled in the Capitol about hidden agendas and a plan by the world’s largest retailer to use the bill to launch a new round of store expansions in California. In the end, the retailers’ association that sponsored the bill quietly walked away and the bill died a lonely death.

Not So Fast, Hollywood With fewer than ten days to go before the end of the session, Assemblymember Bradford orchestrated another regrettable gut-and-amend with AB 1552. Originally a Utilities and Commerce committee bill dealing with electricity, AB 1552 was hijacked by Bradford, the new U&C Committee Chair, and amended to provide a special carve-out for a single stakeholder — the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — from the state’s power plant policy. This procedurally dubious move pitted Chair Bradford against coastal environmental groups and the State Water Resources Control Board, all of whom have been engaged in a careful and deliberative process to address the impacts of once-through cooling systems. After the outcry from other legislators and coastal advocates, the bill was pulled back to the Senate Rules Committee and did not see the light of day.

Senators Choked Up by Corporate Cash One of the more egregious and obvious legislative failures this year was the death of AB 1998 (Brownley), the near-certain ban on the wasteful plastic bags that are choking our waterways, sewers, and oceans. Despite being supported by an unlikely coalition of environmentalists, local governments, grocers, retailers, and labor, the bill went down in the Senate after the American Chemistry Council and South Carolina-based plastic bag manufacturer Hilex Poly Co. dumped more than $2 million into last-minute lobbying and television advertising.

The measure had previously passed the Assembly and even Governor Schwarzenegger had signaled his support, but the tenuous agreement began to fray in the Senate as opponents ramped up their lobbying efforts and amendments designed to win votes seemed to have the opposite effect. AB 1998 tried to respond to a growing call for a statewide environmentally-sound single-use bag policy. With its defeat, several municipalities have recently passed their own bag bans, including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in November 2010 and the San Jose City Council in December 2010 and, at press time, Marin County and Santa Monica. We expect many municipalities to follow suit.

14

“No on Proposition 23” Campaign Results

n 1 million environmental voters targeted

n 2.8 million phone calls and 3.4 million pieces of mail

n 900,000 get out the vote phone calls and text messages

n 61% voters said “No!” to repeal of California’s climate and clean energy law

CLCV Activism ResultsNumber of CLCV Member Action Campaigns in 2010 25

Number of verified actions3 taken by CLCV members through our MAC program in 2010 2,277

Number of individual emails sent to CLCV members and online activists more than 900,000

Californians’ Approval Ratings1

President Obama (63% in 2009) 52% favorable

Congress (39% in 2009) 26% favorable

Governor Schwarzenegger (30% in 2009) 28% favorable

State Legislature (21% in 2009) 16% favorable

Californians’ Opinions on Global Warming2

73% say global warming is a very or somewhat serious threat to California’s future economy and quality of life

54% of Californians believe the effects of global warming have already begun

76% support regulation of emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories

s n a p s h o t o f t h e

Numbers

1 September 2010 poll “Californians and their Government,” Public Policy Institute of California2 July 2010 poll “Californians and the Environment,” Public Policy Institute of California3 Pass-through phone calls and emails to legislators, and GOTV/Voter ID

historical averages

Average Assembly Scores 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Assembly Democrats 94 98 86 87 94 93 87 94Assembly Republicans 24 16 4 6 5 14 13 7 Average Senate Scores 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Senate Democrats 84 98 91 89 89 90 82 91Senate Republicans 34 11 5 6 9 12 9 6


Average of all Assemblymembers 64% 60%

Average Assembly Republican Score 7% 13%

Average Assembly Independent Score (N=1) 95% 86%

Average Assembly Democrat Score 94% 87%

Perfect 100s (Ammiano, Bass, Beall, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, de Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Gatto, Hayashi, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Lowenthal, Monning, Nava, J. Pérez, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Swanson, Torlakson, Yamada) 30 12Assembly Republicans 50% or better (Fletcher 19%) 0 0Assembly Democrats 50% or lower (Huber 43%) 1 2

Average of all Senators 59% 55%

Average Senate Democrat Score 91% 82%

Average Senate Republican Score 6% 9%

Perfect 100s (Alquist, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, A. Lowenthal, Pavley, Steinberg, Yee) 12 7Senate Republicans 50% or better (Blakeslee 21%) 0 0Senate Democrats 50% or lower (Correa 30%) 1 2

Governor 56% 28%

ass

emb

lyse

nat

e2010 2009

scorecardnumbers

“No on Proposition 23” Campaign Results

n 1 million environmental voters targeted

n 2.8 million phone calls and 3.4 million pieces of mail

n 900,000 get out the vote phone calls and text messages

n 61% voters said “No!” to repeal of California’s climate and clean energy law

scorecardnumbers

18

b i l l d e s c r i p t i o n s

All Onboard with Smog Checks

Most motorists want two things from their tailpipe inspections: make it quick and make it cheap. Modern technology now being used in 22 other states has done that and more. AB 2289 (Eng) will bring California’s Smog Check program up to speed by implementing on-board diagnostic testing for vehicle model years 2001 and newer and more stringent performance standards for facilities testing our older, more polluting vehicles. These updates will save money for consumers and the state and boost the emission benefits of the smog check program by 70 tons per day. Passed Senate 22–11; Passed Assembly 49–25; Signed by the Governor.

ab 2289 |

2010

Air QUALiTY


Rainy Day Energy

Developing technology to store electrical energy so it can be available to meet demand whenever needed would represent a major breakthrough in electricity distribution. AB 2514 (Skinner) requires the California PUC to determine appropriate targets for energy storage systems. This process is essential because investing in cost-effective, grid-connected energy storage systems will ease the integration of higher levels of renewable energy into the state’s electricity grid, as well as optimizes the use of renewable energy that is generated during periods of low demand. Passed Senate 22–13; Passed Assembly 48–27; Signed by the Governor.

RPS Redux

Frustrated by the Governor’s veto of SB 14 last year, Senators Simitian, Kehoe, and Steinberg reintroduced a renewable portfolio standard measure this year, SB 722. Although, under the Governor’s directive, the Air Resources Board established an administrative rule for a renewable electricity portfolio (RES), many stakeholders supported establishing the 33% renewable mandate in statute. Increasing the renewables in our electricity grid is an essential element in meeting our AB 32 goals and driving the state towards a greener economy. Last minute procedural complications stalled the bill before it was taken up for a final Senate floor vote. Passed Senate 21–15; Passed Assembly 46–26; Died in Senate Unfinished Business file.

The Green Team

The Senate axed the formalization of an inter-agency effort to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions and combat potentially disastrous climate change impacts to California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, coast and ocean, forestry, infrastructure, and other sectors. By doing so, it put at risk the timely and cost-effective implementation of our state’s climate change laws. AB 2329 (Chesbro & Ruskin) would have established new authorities and administrative structures to hold adaptation funding in trust and to codify in statute key elements of the California Climate Action Strategy. Passed Assembly 49–27; Failed Senate 17–16.

sb 722 |

ab 2514 |

CLEAN & rENEWABLE ENErGY

ENViroNMENTAL JUSTiCE GLoBAL WArMiNG

Healthy Air Quality in All Four Corners

With the adoption of AB 32 in 2006, the state made a promise to ensure that low-income and minority communities would be protected from and strengthened by efforts to tackle California’s climate crisis. However, because the California Air Resources Board has yet to fulfill this promise, AB 1405 (De León/V.M. Pérez) was introduced to create a Community Benefits Fund. A portion of the revenues generated through the implementation of AB 32 was earmarked to help Californians who are least able to confront the expected impacts of the climate crisis at a local level. A veto has put this promise at risk. Passed Senate 22–15; Passed Assembly 49–29; Vetoed by the Governor.

ab 2329 |ab 1405 |

20

Commercial Waste Diversion…Terminated Again

California is a national leader in diverting waste from landfills, currently diverting 54% of all waste. Some years back the former Integrated Waste Management Board had adopted a “zero waste” goal for California. While a laudable goal, it is unreachable without significant increases in diversion, including requirements for commercial recycling. Building on the landmark success of AB 939, AB 737 (Chesbro) presented a package of policies that would have moved California forward from landfilling to waste reduction, recycling, and composting, by requiring all commercial waste generators to establish recycling programs. Passed Senate 21–11; Passed Assembly 46–29; Vetoed by the Governor.

Sunlighting Shady CEQA Lawsuits

On some occasions, parties that should be notified of a CEQA lawsuit are not. If any so called “indispensible party” is not made aware of the pending litigation, a suit may be dismissed. In some cases, the omission of notice is exploited by certain parties to intentionally overturn a case. AB 499 (Hill) would have required the lead agency in a CEQA case to list these indispensible parties or “recipients of approval,” thus avoiding anyone being left in the dark. The veto shut the door to this much-needed transparency. Passed Senate 22–15; Passed Assembly 49–28; Vetoed by the Governor.

To Boom, or Not to Boom?

That was the question one legislator was trying to answer when it comes to marine oil transfers in our state. In the aftermath of the Dubai Star spill in 2009, industry and environmentalists alike have become acutely aware of the disastrous effects oil leaks can have on our costal economies and habitats. AB 234 (Huffman) would have required the Office of Spill Prevention and Response to require a vessel, at the point of transfer, to provide appropriate equipment and supplies for containment and removal of spills in our waters. However, the Governor’s veto provided an unwelcome answer to the question. Passed Senate 21–14, Passed Assembly 45–28; Vetoed by the Governor.

ab 499 |

ab 234 |

oCEAN & CoASTAL ProTECTioN

GooD GoVErNMENT

GrEEN JoBS

rECYCLiNG/WASTE rEDUCTioN

Training the Green Economy Workforce

Senator Steinberg’s SB 675 would have helped curb school dropouts and fuel clean technology, renewable energy, water conservation, and pollution reduction job training. The injection of $8,000,000 into California school districts for this training would have reaped the double benefits of modernizing public educational facilities to better enable them to educate and train students for the growing green economy and providing productive pathways to well-paid jobs for disadvantaged students. Passed Assembly 51–25; Passed Senate 21–14; Vetoed by the Governor.

ab 737 |

sb 675 |


Cradle to Cradle, Carpet to Carpet

With the support of recyclers, carpet manufacturers, local governments, and environmental groups, the Governor signed legislation that requires carpet manufacturers to prepare a carpet stewardship plan to meet certain recycling targets. AB 2398 (J. Pérez) creates increased demand for recycled carpet products in California by increasing the state’s recycled content requirement for carpet bought by the state and, over time, will increase the percentage rate at which discarded carpet is recycled, up to 50% by 2022. Passed Senate 23–12; Passed Assembly 49–27; Signed by the Governor.

Battery EPR Bill Shorts Out in Assembly

Charged up by the huge costs to local government to properly handle dead batteries and the difficulty in disposing of them legally, supporters of extended producer responsibility urged Senator Corbett to introduce SB 1100. Under the bill, household battery manufacturers would have been required to cover the costs of planning for and implementing the end-of-life management of their products. With the notion of extended producer responsibility widely endorsed globally, California cities and counties are embracing the practice as a way to reduce costs as well as encourage more environmentally benign product design and relieve the burdens on retail stores for costly take-back programs. Intense lobbying from the single-use battery manufacturers and several high tech firms drained the bill’s support on the Assembly floor. Passed Senate 23–10; Withdrawn from Assembly Appropriations Committee; Referred to and held in Assembly Rules Committee.

rECYCLiNG/WASTE rEDUCTioN (CoNTiNUED)

ab 1343 |

sb 1100 |

ab 2398 |Painting the Roses Green

Leftover paint poses a significant environmental threat and financial burden to local governments and the state. Improperly disposed paint can contaminate groundwater and harm fish and other aquatic life. AB 1343 (Huffman) requires manufacturers to take responsibility for establishing and financing a safe and reliable system for the recovery and proper management of leftover paint in this state. As with other Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, there is an underlying assumption that an industry-run program using a market based approach will be more efficient and cost-effective than overlapping state and local programs. Passed Senate 21–15; Passed Assembly 47–28; Signed by the Governor.

Sacking the Bag

Even with support from a diverse coalition ranging from retailers, environmental groups, grocers, unions, state and local government, celebrities, labor groups, and reusable bag manufacturers, the State Senate failed to pass the widely touted AB 1998 (Brownley). A strongly mounted attack by the American Chemistry Council and a growing “Mod Dem Caucus” in the Senate dashed the hopes of many Californians to be the first state in the Union to ban the “urban tumbleweed” and chronic ocean polluter: the single-use plastic bag. As Mexico City, American Samoa and even provinces in China are added to the list of countries and regions that have already said

“no” to plastic bags, California still looks for ways to get a handle on this environmental blight. Passed Assembly 42–27; Failed Senate 14–21.

ab 1998 |

spid

erbo

x ph

otog

raph

y in

c.

22

Limiting Exposure to Pesticides

California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities and the state produces nearly half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables. To handle all of these goods requires a vast number of farm workers; workers who are often exposed to harmful chemicals. AB 1963 (Nava) improves the pesticide poisoning prevention program by having laboratories send test results electronically that can be shared with state agencies which can then provide medical and toxicological support for local doctors and officials working to mitigate contamination. Passed Senate 22–14; Passed Assembly 51–26; Signed by the Governor.

Crying over BPA Milk

Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence of the dangerous health impacts to infants and children from exposure to BPA, SB 797 failed passage in the Senate. Authored by Senators Pavley and Liu, the bill would have prohibited the use of the toxic chemical and

synthetic estrogen bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans, and baby food jars. For the third time, supporters of children’s health watched as the American Chemistry Council lobbied against precaution and defended a product that is widely condemned as a cancer-causing agent and endocrine disruptor. Passed Assembly 43–31; Failed Senate 19–18.

Banning Heavy Metals: Music to our Ears

As an encore to AB 1681 from 2006, which banned lead in jewelry, SB 929 (Pavley) prohibits cadmium in children’s jewelry sold in California. Like lead, cadmium is a Prop 65 carcinogen, neurotoxin, and reproductive toxicant. Because children are known to metabolize faster than adults, there is an increased risk of children absorbing these toxins into their bodies through earrings, necklaces, and bracelets. Passed Assembly 52–24; Passed Senate 23–11; Signed by the Governor.

ab 1963 |

sb 797 |

sb 929 |

ToxiCS & CHEMiCALS

A Blue Ribbon Strategy

Without the state fulfilling its public trust responsibility, California’s ability to effectively protect our natural resources, our recreational opportunities, and the economies that depend on them will continue to be compromised. AB 2376 (Huffman) requires an examination of strategies to bolster the ability of the Fish and Game Department and Commission to meet the challenges of the 21st century by directing the Natural Resources Agency to convene a cabinet-level panel and an independent blue ribbon task force to develop a strategic vision. Passed Senate 21–15; Passed Assembly 47–26; Signed by the Governor.

WiLDLiFE & HABiTAT

ab 2376 |


WATEr QUALiTY & SUPPLY

Verifying Vending Water

Wouldn’t you like transparency on where your bottled water comes from and how much of it is captured and sold? Had it not been for the Governor’s veto, AB 301 (Fuentes) would have required businesses licensed to bottle water or sell water for human use to annually report the total volume of water bottled or distributed, the source of the water, whether the source is privately or publicly owned, and the county of that source. This transparency would have helped both community members and decision-makers to more accurately understand the impacts of proposed and existing bottled-water facilities in California. Passed Senate 22–14; Passed Assembly 50–27; Vetoed by the Governor.

Multiunit = Multimeters, Right?

California’s water supply is under intense pressure from climate change, increasing population, and development. Water metering and volumetric pricing are paramount to giving Californians an accurate signal about their water use. AB 1975 (Fong) would have required individual water meters or sub-meters in new multiunit residential, mixed use residential and commercial structures, and required that property owners charge occupants for water and sewer service based on the actual volume of water delivered to the unit. Passed Assembly 59–13; Held in Senate Appropriations Committee.

X Marks the Spot

Last year groundwater provided 40 percent of the state’s water supplies and in some areas it provided 100 percent of the local supply. AB 2304 (Huffman) would have promoted the protection of the state’s groundwater supplies by requiring, as a condition for receiving a state grant or loan, local water agencies to map the recharge areas as part of their groundwater management plans and to submit this information to

local planning agencies. Dousing the bill this year has only delayed the pain for later. Passed Senate 22–12; Passed Assembly 48–28; Vetoed by the Governor.

Putting the Brakes on Urban Water Pollution

Over a decade of hard work and collaboration have paid off for environmental groups, water quality managers, local stormwater agencies, and the auto industry with the enactment of SB 346 by Senator Kehoe. Extensive water quality studies have shown that our urban creeks and water bodies are badly polluted with copper and other heavy metals that kill aquatic life and disrupt the growth and reproduction of fish, particularly salmon. Motor vehicle brake pads containing cadmium, chromium VI, lead, mercury, and asbestiform fibers will be phased out by January 1, 2014 and brake pads that contain more than 0.5 percent copper by January 1, 2025. Passed Assembly 70–3; Passed Senate 31–6; Signed by the Governor.

Water, Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink

Every year California flushes more than 4 million acre-feet of water into the ocean after one use — more than the State Water Project delivers to the Bay Area, the Central Valley, and Southern California. SB 918 directs the State Department of Public Health to develop criteria for ensuring safe indirect and direct potable use — the processes by which recycled water is used to recharge groundwater basins and augment surface storage reservoirs. By creating these clear state-wide reuse standards, California will be better able to develop a drought-resistant, cost-effective water source and take pressure off our rivers, the Delta, and depleted groundwater reserves. Passed Assembly 54–21; Passed Senate 25–12; Signed by the Governor.

ab 2304 |

ab 1975 |

sb 346 |

sb 918 |

ab 301 |

Take acTioNOn the following pages, you’ll find the

scores of each of the members of the

Assembly and State Senate, and the

governor. If you received this in the mail, your

Assembly and Senate district numbers should

be above your name on the back cover; you

can use those numbers to find your legislators

in the chart.

Two of the primary ways CLCV helped influence

these scores in 2010—with the valuable

participation of nearly 30,000 members

statewide—are our Member Action Campaign

and Green California programs.

In September 2010, CLCV entered a new era.

We launched a complete overhaul of our

website, ecovote.org, installing a powerful set

of online tools to facilitate grassroots activism.

k n o w t h e s c o r e

MAC Calls: Connecting you with Sacramento in real timeThe Member Action Campaign (MAC) program enables CLCV to connect members with their elected officials in order to influence environmental policy. Here is how MAC works:

24

1CLCV political staff provides up-to-the-minute

intelligence about high priority bills that need a few more votes to pass

2We alert members in districts with swing-voting

legislators so that public pressure can be directed to the right targets

3We directly connect members to their legislators’

offices through our phone lines

4Concentrated calls from constituents provide

immediate, focused input

5Legislators cast pro-environmental votes

Confused about what the scores mean, or how things work in Sacramento? Get a brief rundown of how a bill becomes a law at ecovote.org/process.

1

Take acTioNThe MAC program takes advantage of the fact that legislators and other decision makers give great weight to their constituents’ opinions; a small number of phone calls is extrapolated to represent many voices. Directing a steady stream of phone calls to carefully selected elected officials has been a repeatedly successful technique to convince legislators to vote for environmental bills.

In 2010, CLCV overhauled our online presence to become even more effective. Our greatly expanded set of tools allows you to contact your legislators or the governor—or even write a letter to the editor—directly from our website. Also, our work to keep legislators accountable is easier to understand and more accessible than ever before. Votes and scores from this and past Scorecards are now searchable by issue area and legislator. Find out more at ecovote.org/new.

CLCV members help pass laws through their participation in our grassroots campaigns. It is the concern and willingness of members to take action that continues to keep environmental protection at the forefront of California politics.

Green California: for better environmental coordinationThe CLCV Education Fund leads Green California, a convening program that strengthens strategic coordination among environmental lobbyists working on state policy in Sacramento.

Launched in 2006, Green California is a network of 70 environmental, public health, and environmental justice organizations throughout the state that have joined to communicate the environmental

community’s priorities to the legislature. Collectively, over 1 million Californians belong to the groups represented in Green California.

We continue to refine our process for identifying key bills at strategic times during the legislative session. Green California sends out floor alerts at key legislative deadlines; for the past three years, Green California has sent out weekly “Hot Lists” throughout the session, making sure our high-priority bills have front-of-mind status.

Initially formed in response to legislators’ requests for a more coordinated effort from environmental groups in Sacramento, Green California is now established as a resource and “go-to” entity for both legislators and environmental groups.

Now that you know the score… take action! You can take these simple steps to stay informed and to make your views heard in Sacramento:

1. Become a CLCV member at ecovote.org or by using the envelope in this Scorecard.

2. Join the discussion at ecovote.org/blog.

3. Join the CLCV e-newsletter list at ecovote.org/e-news.

4. Keep up-to-date throughout the year on key legislation and actions you can take at ecovote.org/involved.

5. Contact your Senator and Assemblymember and express how you feel about their scores; find out who your state legislators are and how to contact them at ecovote.org/legislators.

Explanation of icons

Each 4 represents a pro-environmental vote: a “yes” vote on a good bill. Each 8 represents an

anti-environmental vote: a “no” vote on a good bill. nV, or “not voting” is shown when the legislator

did not cast a vote on a good bill; it is counted negatively because it has the same effect as a “no”

vote. Each — indicates an excused non-vote (due to illness or family leave) and does not count

toward the member’s final score.


ab 2

289:

sm

og ch

eck

stan

dard

sab

251

4: e

nerg

y st

orag

esb

722

: ren

ewab

les m

anda

teab

140

5: c

limat

e ju

stice

ab 2

329:

cod

ify cl

imat

e st

rate

gy

ab 2

34: o

il sp

ill pr

even

tion

ab 4

99: c

eQa

suit

sunl

ight

sb 6

75: G

reen

jobs

trai

ning

ab 7

37: c

omm

ercia

l rec

yclin

g

energy Green Jobsair Global

Warmingocean &

coastGood Gov’t

enviro. Justice recycling/. . .

Governor: Party-Dist. 2010 Score 2009 Score Lifetime Score

schwarzenegger r 56% 28% 53% SIGN SIGN VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO SIGN SIGN SIGN SIGN VETO VETO SIGN SIGN SIGN schwarzenegger r

Senator: Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Senate Action

aanestad r-4 0% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 aanestad r-4

alquist D-13 100% 90% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 alquist D-13

ashburn r-18 5% 5% 4% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ashburn r-18

blakeslee r-15 21%B 33%A 24% 8 4 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 nV 4 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 blakeslee r-15

calderon, r. D-30 85% 67% 70% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 calderon, r. D-30

cedillo D-22 100% 86% 94% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 cedillo D-22

cogdill r-14 0% 5% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 cogdill r-14

corbett D-10 100% 100% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 corbett D-10

correa D-34 30% 29% 56% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 4 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 4 correa D-34

cox r-1 n/a 5% 7% — cox r-1

Denham r-12 0% 19% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Denham r-12

Desaulnier D-7 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Desaulnier D-7

Ducheny D-40 85% 71% 82% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 8 Ducheny D-40

Dutton r-31 5% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Dutton r-31

emmerson r-37 5%B 24%A 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 emmerson r-37

Florez D-16 85% 70% 63% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 Florez D-16

Hancock D-9 100% 100% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hancock D-9

Harman r-35 15% 0% 18% — — 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV — 8 — — — 4 4 8 Harman r-35

Hollingsworth r-36 0% 5% 2% — 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 — 8 — 8 8 8 Hollingsworth r-36

Huff r-29 10% 5% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 8 Huff r-29

kehoe D-39 100% 95% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 kehoe D-39

Leno D-3 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Leno D-3

Liu D-21 100% 81% 93% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Liu D-21

Lowenthal, a. D-27 100% 100% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lowenthal, a. D-27

Negrete mcLeod D-32 70% 57% 70% 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 nV 8 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Negrete mcLeod D-32

oropeza D-28 n/a 48% 87% — — — — — — — — — — — 4 — — — — — — — — oropeza D-28

Padilla D-20 95% 81% 93% 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Padilla D-20

Pavley D-23 100% 100% 100% 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pavley D-23

Price D-26 85% 90% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 nV 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Price D-26

romero D-24 95% 86% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 romero D-24

runner, G. r-17 0% 0% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 runner, G. r-17

simitian D-11 90% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 simitian D-11

steinberg D-6 100% 79% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 steinberg D-6

strickland, T. r-19 10% 19% 5% 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 8 nV nV 8 8 8 8 4 8 nV 4 8 nV strickland, T. r-19

Walters r-33 5% 5% 3% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Walters r-33

Wiggins D-2 n/a 100% 99% — — — — — — — — — — — nV — — — — — — — — Wiggins D-2

Wolk D-5 95% 90% 89% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Wolk D-5

Wright D-25 80% 38% 76% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Wright D-25

Wyland r-38 5% 10% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Wyland r-38

Yee D-8 100% 95% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Yee D-8

GOVERNOR/ SENATE SCORECARD

A indicates a score earned entirely in the Assembly. B indicates a combined score for votes taken in both the Assembly and the Senate.

HE

LD

IN

SE

NA

TE

uN

fIN

ISH

ED

Bu

SIN

ES

S

ab 1

963:

Pes

ticid

e po

isoni

ng

prev

entio

nsb

797

: bisp

heno

l-a (b

Pa) b

an

sb 9

29: c

adm

ium

in ch

ildre

n’s

jew

elry

ab 3

01: V

ende

d w

ater

repo

rting

ab 1

975:

apa

rtmen

t wat

er m

eter

s

ab 2

304:

Gro

undw

ater

map

ping

sb 3

46: b

rake

pol

luta

nt p

hase

-out

sb 91

8: W

ater

recy

cling

pro

cess

ab 1

998:

Pla

stic

bag

ban

ab 2

398:

car

pet d

ispos

alsb

1100

: bat

tery

disp

osal

ab 2

376:

res

ourc

es p

anel

&

task

forc

e

ab 1

343:

Pai

nt d

ispos

al

Water Quality & supply Wildlife & Habitat. . . Waste reduction Toxics & chemicals recycling/. . .

Governor: Party-Dist. 2010 Score 2009 Score Lifetime Score

schwarzenegger r 56% 28% 53% SIGN SIGN VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO SIGN SIGN SIGN SIGN VETO VETO SIGN SIGN SIGN schwarzenegger r

Senator: Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass FaIL Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Senate Action

aanestad r-4 0% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 aanestad r-4

alquist D-13 100% 90% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 alquist D-13

ashburn r-18 5% 5% 4% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ashburn r-18

blakeslee r-15 21%B 33%A 24% 8 4 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 nV 4 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 blakeslee r-15

calderon, r. D-30 85% 67% 70% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 calderon, r. D-30

cedillo D-22 100% 86% 94% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 cedillo D-22

cogdill r-14 0% 5% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 cogdill r-14

corbett D-10 100% 100% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 corbett D-10

correa D-34 30% 29% 56% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 4 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 4 correa D-34

cox r-1 n/a 5% 7% — cox r-1

Denham r-12 0% 19% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Denham r-12

Desaulnier D-7 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Desaulnier D-7

Ducheny D-40 85% 71% 82% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 8 Ducheny D-40

Dutton r-31 5% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Dutton r-31

emmerson r-37 5%B 24%A 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 emmerson r-37

Florez D-16 85% 70% 63% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 Florez D-16

Hancock D-9 100% 100% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hancock D-9

Harman r-35 15% 0% 18% — — 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV — 8 — — — 4 4 8 Harman r-35

Hollingsworth r-36 0% 5% 2% — 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 — 8 — 8 8 8 Hollingsworth r-36

Huff r-29 10% 5% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 8 Huff r-29

kehoe D-39 100% 95% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 kehoe D-39

Leno D-3 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Leno D-3

Liu D-21 100% 81% 93% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Liu D-21

Lowenthal, a. D-27 100% 100% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lowenthal, a. D-27

Negrete mcLeod D-32 70% 57% 70% 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 nV 8 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Negrete mcLeod D-32

oropeza D-28 n/a 48% 87% — — — — — — — — — — — 4 — — — — — — — — oropeza D-28

Padilla D-20 95% 81% 93% 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Padilla D-20

Pavley D-23 100% 100% 100% 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pavley D-23

Price D-26 85% 90% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 nV 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Price D-26

romero D-24 95% 86% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 romero D-24

runner, G. r-17 0% 0% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 runner, G. r-17

simitian D-11 90% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 simitian D-11

steinberg D-6 100% 79% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 steinberg D-6

strickland, T. r-19 10% 19% 5% 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 8 nV nV 8 8 8 8 4 8 nV 4 8 nV strickland, T. r-19

Walters r-33 5% 5% 3% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Walters r-33

Wiggins D-2 n/a 100% 99% — — — — — — — — — — — nV — — — — — — — — Wiggins D-2

Wolk D-5 95% 90% 89% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Wolk D-5

Wright D-25 80% 38% 76% 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 8 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 Wright D-25

Wyland r-38 5% 10% 4% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Wyland r-38

Yee D-8 100% 95% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Yee D-8

4 Pro-Environmental Vote 8 Anti-Environmental Vote nV Not voting (counted negatively on pro-environmental bills) — Excused (illness or family leave)

sIGn Pro-Environmental Signing by GovernorVeTo Anti-Environmental Veto by Governor

HE

LD

IN

SE

NA

TE

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TIO

NS

Su

SP

EN

SE

fIL

E

ab 2

289:

sm

og ch

eck

stan

dard

sab

251

4: e

nerg

y st

orag

esb

722

: ren

ewab

les m

anda

teab

140

5: c

limat

e ju

stice

ab 2

329:

cod

ify cl

imat

e st

rate

gy

ab 2

34: o

il sp

ill pr

even

tion

ab 4

99: c

eQa

suit

sunl

ight

sb 6

75: G

reen

jobs

trai

ning

ab 7

37: c

omm

ercia

l rec

yclin

g

Global Warming recycling/. . . energy Green

Jobsair Good Gov’t

ocean & coast

enviro. Justice

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD

Assemblymember: Party-Dist 2010 Score 2009 Score Lifetime Score Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Assembly Action

adams r-59 10% 19% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 adams r-59

ammiano D-13 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ammiano D-13

anderson r-77 5% 10% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 anderson r-77

arambula i-31 95% 86% 80% 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 arambula i-31

bass D-47 100% 90% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 bass D-47

beall D-24 100% 95% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 beall D-24

berryhill, b. r-26 5% 24% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 nV 8 8 berryhill, b. r-26

berryhill, T. r-25 6% 10% 13% 8 8 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 — 8 4 8 8 berryhill, T. r-25

blakeslee r-33 21%B 33%A 24% 8 8 8 8 4 blakeslee r-33

block D-78 95% 89% 92% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 block D-78

blumenfield D-40 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 blumenfield D-40

bradford D-51 100% 88% 94% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 bradford D-51

brownley D-41 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 brownley D-41

buchanan D-15 95% 95% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 buchanan D-15

caballero D-28 76% 81% 83% 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 4 4 8 4 4 4 caballero D-28

calderon, c. D-58 90% 62% 76% 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 calderon, c. D-58

carter D-62 100% 81% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 carter D-62

chesbro D-1 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 chesbro D-1

conway r-34 5% 9% 7% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 conway r-34

cook r-65 5% 14% 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 nV 8 nV 8 4 8 8 cook r-65

coto D-23 100% 86% 90% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 coto D-23

Davis D-48 95% 86% 90% nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Davis D-48

De La Torre D-50 86% 90% 90% 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV De La Torre D-50

De León D-45 100% 95% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 De León D-45

DeVore r-70 0% 5% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 DeVore r-70

emmerson r-63 5%B 24%A 10% 8 8 nV emmerson r-63

eng D-49 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 eng D-49

evans D-7 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 evans D-7

Feuer D-42 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Feuer D-42

Fletcher r-75 19% 33% 26% 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 4 8 4 8 4 nV 8 Fletcher r-75

Fong D-22 95% 90% 93% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fong D-22

Fuentes D-39 90% 68% 85% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 Fuentes D-39

Fuller r-32 10% 14% 9% 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Fuller r-32

Furutani D-55 90% 81% 87% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 nV Furutani D-55

Gaines r-4 0% 0% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Gaines r-4

Galgiani D-17 62% 48% 43% 4 4 nV 8 4 nV 4 4 nV 8 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV 4 4 8 Galgiani D-17

Garrick r-74 0% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 Garrick r-74

Gatto D-43 100% - 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Gatto D-43

Gilmore r-30 14% 24% 19% nV nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 8 Gilmore r-30

Hagman r-60 5% 10% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Hagman r-60

Hall D-52 90% 71% 81% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hall D-52

A indicates a score earned entirely in the Assembly. B indicates a combined score for votes taken in both the Assembly and the Senate.

ab 1

963:

Pes

ticid

e po

isoni

ng

prev

entio

nsb

797

: bisp

heno

l-a (b

Pa) b

an

sb 9

29: c

adm

ium

in ch

ildre

n’s

jew

elry

ab 3

01: V

ende

d w

ater

repo

rting

ab 1

975:

apa

rtmen

t wat

er m

eter

s

ab 2

304:

Gro

undw

ater

map

ping

sb 3

46: b

rake

pol

luta

nt p

hase

-out

sb 91

8: W

ater

recy

cling

pro

cess

ab 1

998:

Pla

stic

bag

ban

ab 2

398:

car

pet d

ispos

alsb

1100

: bat

tery

disp

osal

ab 2

376:

res

ourc

es p

anel

&

task

forc

e

ab 1

343:

Pai

nt d

ispos

al



adams r-59 10% 19% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 adams r-59

ammiano D-13 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ammiano D-13

anderson r-77 5% 10% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 anderson r-77

arambula i-31 95% 86% 80% 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 arambula i-31

bass D-47 100% 90% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 bass D-47

beall D-24 100% 95% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 beall D-24

berryhill, b. r-26 5% 24% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 nV 8 8 berryhill, b. r-26

berryhill, T. r-25 6% 10% 13% 8 8 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 — 8 8 8 8 8 — 8 4 8 8 berryhill, T. r-25

blakeslee r-33 21%B 33%A 24% 8 8 8 8 4 blakeslee r-33

block D-78 95% 89% 92% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 block D-78

blumenfield D-40 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 blumenfield D-40

bradford D-51 100% 88% 94% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 bradford D-51

brownley D-41 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 brownley D-41

buchanan D-15 95% 95% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 buchanan D-15

caballero D-28 76% 81% 83% 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 8 8 4 4 8 4 4 4 caballero D-28

calderon, c. D-58 90% 62% 76% 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 calderon, c. D-58

carter D-62 100% 81% 91% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 carter D-62

chesbro D-1 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 chesbro D-1

conway r-34 5% 9% 7% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 conway r-34

cook r-65 5% 14% 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 nV 8 nV 8 4 8 8 cook r-65

coto D-23 100% 86% 90% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 coto D-23

Davis D-48 95% 86% 90% nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Davis D-48

De La Torre D-50 86% 90% 90% 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV De La Torre D-50

De León D-45 100% 95% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 De León D-45

DeVore r-70 0% 5% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 DeVore r-70

emmerson r-63 5%B 24%A 10% 8 8 nV emmerson r-63

eng D-49 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 eng D-49

evans D-7 100% 90% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 evans D-7

Feuer D-42 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Feuer D-42

Fletcher r-75 19% 33% 26% 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 nV 4 8 4 8 4 nV 8 Fletcher r-75

Fong D-22 95% 90% 93% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fong D-22

Fuentes D-39 90% 68% 85% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 Fuentes D-39

Fuller r-32 10% 14% 9% 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Fuller r-32

Furutani D-55 90% 81% 87% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 nV Furutani D-55

Gaines r-4 0% 0% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Gaines r-4

Galgiani D-17 62% 48% 43% 4 4 nV 8 4 nV 4 4 nV 8 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV 4 4 8 Galgiani D-17

Garrick r-74 0% 10% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 Garrick r-74

Gatto D-43 100% - 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Gatto D-43

Gilmore r-30 14% 24% 19% nV nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 8 Gilmore r-30

Hagman r-60 5% 10% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Hagman r-60

Hall D-52 90% 71% 81% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hall D-52

4 Pro-Environmental Vote

8 Anti-Environmental Vote

nV Not voting (counted negatively on pro-environmental bills)

— Excused (illness or family leave)H

EL

D I

N A

SS

EM

BL

Y R

uL

ES

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ab 2

289:

sm

og ch

eck

stan

dard

sab

251

4: e

nerg

y st

orag

esb

722

: ren

ewab

les m

anda

teab

140

5: c

limat

e ju

stice

ab 2

329:

cod

ify cl

imat

e st

rate

gy

ab 2

34: o

il sp

ill pr

even

tion

ab 4

99: c

eQa

suit

sunl

ight

sb 6

75: G

reen

jobs

trai

ning

ab 7

37: c

omm

ercia

l rec

yclin

g

Global Warming recycling/. . . energy Green

Jobsair Good Gov’t

ocean & coast

enviro. Justice

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD


Harkey r-73 10% 14% 12% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 Harkey r-73

Hayashi D-18 100% 86% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hayashi D-18

Hernandez D-57 90% 76% 88% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hernandez D-57

Hill D-19 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hill D-19

Huber D-10 43% 48% 46% 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 Huber D-10

Huffman D-6 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Huffman D-6

Jeffries r-66 10% 10% 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 4 4 8 Jeffries r-66

Jones D-9 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Jones D-9

knight r-36 0% 5% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 knight r-36

Lieu D-53 100% 90% 96% 4 4 4 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lieu D-53

Logue r-3 10% 5% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Logue r-3

Lowenthal, b. D-54 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lowenthal, b. D-54

ma D-12 95% 90% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 ma D-12

mendoza D-56 90% 62% 86% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 mendoza D-56

miller r-71 5% 5% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 4 8 8 miller r-71

monning D-27 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 monning D-27

Nava D-35 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Nava D-35

Nestande r-64 10% 14% 12% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Nestande r-64

Niello r-5 10% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 Niello r-5

Nielsen r-2 5% 10% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Nielsen r-2

Norby r-72 5% - 5% nV 8 nV 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 nV nV Norby r-72

Pérez, J. D-46 100% 91% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pérez, J. D-46

Pérez, V.m. D-80 86% 52% 69% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 Pérez, V.m. D-80

Portantino D-44 90% 90% 91% 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Portantino D-44

ruskin D-21 100% 95% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ruskin D-21

salas D-79 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 salas D-79

saldaña D-76 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 saldaña D-76

silva r-67 10% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 silva r-67

skinner D-14 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 skinner D-14

smyth r-38 5% 24% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 smyth r-38

solorio D-69 90% 64% 84% 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 solorio D-69

strickland, a. r-37 6% 18% 8% 8 8 nV 8 — 8 8 8 8 nV — nV 8 8 8 8 — 8 4 8 nV strickland, a. r-37

swanson D-16 100% 86% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 swanson D-16

Torlakson D-11 100% 82% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Torlakson D-11

Torres D-61 71% 76% 74% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 nV Torres D-61

Torrico D-20 90% 90% 82% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Torrico D-20

Tran r-68 5% 19% 8% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Tran r-68

Villines r-29 14% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 8 Villines r-29

Yamada D-8 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Yamada D-8

ab 1

963:

Pes

ticid

e po

isoni

ng

prev

entio

nsb

797

: bisp

heno

l-a (b

Pa) b

an

sb 9

29: c

adm

ium

in ch

ildre

n’s

jew

elry

ab 3

01: V

ende

d w

ater

repo

rting

ab 1

975:

apa

rtmen

t wat

er m

eter

s

ab 2

304:

Gro

undw

ater

map

ping

sb 3

46: b

rake

pol

luta

nt p

hase

-out

sb 91

8: W

ater

recy

cling

pro

cess

ab 1

998:

Pla

stic

bag

ban

ab 2

398:

car

pet d

ispos

alsb

1100

: bat

tery

disp

osal

ab 2

376:

res

ourc

es p

anel

&

task

forc

e

ab 1

343:

Pai

nt d

ispos

al



Harkey r-73 10% 14% 12% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 Harkey r-73

Hayashi D-18 100% 86% 97% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hayashi D-18

Hernandez D-57 90% 76% 88% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hernandez D-57

Hill D-19 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Hill D-19

Huber D-10 43% 48% 46% 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 Huber D-10

Huffman D-6 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Huffman D-6

Jeffries r-66 10% 10% 10% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 4 4 8 Jeffries r-66

Jones D-9 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Jones D-9

knight r-36 0% 5% 3% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 knight r-36

Lieu D-53 100% 90% 96% 4 4 4 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lieu D-53

Logue r-3 10% 5% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Logue r-3

Lowenthal, b. D-54 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Lowenthal, b. D-54

ma D-12 95% 90% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 ma D-12

mendoza D-56 90% 62% 86% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 mendoza D-56

miller r-71 5% 5% 5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 4 8 8 miller r-71

monning D-27 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 monning D-27

Nava D-35 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Nava D-35

Nestande r-64 10% 14% 12% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 Nestande r-64

Niello r-5 10% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 Niello r-5

Nielsen r-2 5% 10% 8% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Nielsen r-2

Norby r-72 5% - 5% nV 8 nV 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 nV nV Norby r-72

Pérez, J. D-46 100% 91% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Pérez, J. D-46

Pérez, V.m. D-80 86% 52% 69% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 4 Pérez, V.m. D-80

Portantino D-44 90% 90% 91% 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Portantino D-44

ruskin D-21 100% 95% 99% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ruskin D-21

salas D-79 100% 100% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 salas D-79

saldaña D-76 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 saldaña D-76

silva r-67 10% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 nV 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 8 silva r-67

skinner D-14 100% 100% 100% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 skinner D-14

smyth r-38 5% 24% 15% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 smyth r-38

solorio D-69 90% 64% 84% 4 nV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 solorio D-69

strickland, a. r-37 6% 18% 8% 8 8 nV 8 — 8 8 8 8 nV — nV 8 8 8 8 — 8 4 8 nV strickland, a. r-37

swanson D-16 100% 86% 95% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 swanson D-16

Torlakson D-11 100% 82% 96% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Torlakson D-11

Torres D-61 71% 76% 74% 4 4 4 4 4 nV 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 4 4 4 nV nV 4 4 nV Torres D-61

Torrico D-20 90% 90% 82% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Torrico D-20

Tran r-68 5% 19% 8% nV 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 Tran r-68

Villines r-29 14% 5% 6% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 8 Villines r-29

Yamada D-8 100% 95% 98% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Yamada D-8

4 Pro-Environmental Vote

8 Anti-Environmental Vote

nV Not voting (counted negatively on pro-environmental bills)

— Excused (illness or family leave)H

EL

D I

N A

SS

EM

BL

Y R

uL

ES

CO

MM

ITT

EE

32

CLCV is grateful for the participation of its Green California partners. Together, we’re getting top priority environmental bills to the governor’s desk. Thanks to:

Tom Adams President

Ann Notthoff Vice President Northern California

Kimo Campbell Secretary

fran Diamond Treasurer

Charles Grace Chairman Emeritus

Bob Balgenorth

Steve Blank

Christopher Cannon

Mario Cordero

The Honorable Joseph L. Dunn

María Elena Durazo

David festa

Susan frank

Leslie friedman-Johnson

Cliff Gladstein

Lorena Gonzalez

Carl Guardino

Robert L. Harris

Jennifer Hernandez

Scott Leathers

Doug Linney

Wendy Mitchell

H. David Nahai

Andrew Okun

Anthony Rendon, PhD

Charles Stringer

V. John White

Mike Young

Rick Zbur

CLCV Board of Directors

Permission is granted to quote from or reproduce portions of this publication if properly credited.

American Lung Association of California, Audubon California, Better World Group, Big Sur Land Trust, Breast Cancer Fund, Breathe California, California Association of Local Conservation Corps, California Coastal Coalition, California Coastal Protection Network, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California Council of Land Trusts, California League of Conservation Voters, California Native Plant Society, California Oaks Foundation, California Product Stewardship Council, California ReLeaf, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Secure Transportation Energy Project, California State Parks Foundation, California Trout, California Watershed Network, California Wilderness Coalition, Californians Against Waste, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Carbon Label California, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Clean Power Campaign, Clean Water Action, Coalition for Clean Air, CoastWalk, Communities for Clean Ports, Community Environmental Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment California, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Environmental Working Group, Faith2Green, Forests Forever, Friends of the Earth, Global Green USA, Green LA Coalition, Heal the Bay, League of Women Voters of California, Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Making Our Milk Safe, Mono Lake Committee, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Forest Trust, Pesticide Watch, Planning and Conservation League, Regional Asthma Management Program (RAMP), Seventh Generation Advisors, Sierra Club California, The Sierra Fund, Surfrider Foundation, Sustainable Conservation, TransForm, TreePeople, Trout Unlimited, Trust for Public Land, Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Vote Solar Initiative

Warner Chabot Chief Executive Officer

David Allgood Southern California Director

Shilpa Andalkar Database Manager

Lindsay Bubar Development Manager

Mike Cluster Membership Administrator

Ana Elizondo Membership Assistant

Maya Garza Administrative Assistant

Nisha Gnanamuthu Administrative Manager

Jason L. Gohlke Communications Manager

Beth Gunston Associate Membership Manager

Michael Hawk Director of Operations

Scott Leathers Associate Membership Manager

Lucas Lineback Assistant Database Manager

Jenesse E. Miller Communications Director

Lillian Phaeton Membership Assistant

Katy Rexford Program Director

Terry Rillera Executive Assistant

Rebecca Saltzman Online Organizer/ Program Associate

Sam Shaw Development Manager

H. Eric Schockman, PhD Vice President, Education Fund

Julianne Simitz Development Associate, Education Fund

Mark States Accounting Manager

Mike Young Political and Development Associate

CLCV Staff

Membership Representatives:Glenn Barker, Bekah Barnett, Jeremy Begin, Matt Bielby, Jane Burton, Adinah Caro-Greene, Steve DeCaprio, Linda Glaser, Dave Krzysik, Laurel Lee, Mary Lunetta, Micci Martinez, John Payne, Marlene Tait, Betty Jane Wilhoit

Legislative Advocates: Ecoconsult: Justin Malan, Rachael O’Brien, Kiowa Borja

Principal Author: Justin Malan

Editors: Jenesse E. Miller, Katy Rexford, Jason L. Gohlke

Copy Editor: Terry Rillera

Photography: Warren H. White

(except where otherwise credited).

Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks by Dakota Press, San Leandro, CA www.dakotapress.com

Design: Ison Designwww.isondesign.com

www.NaturalDiscoveriesPhotography.com

Northern California Office350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 1100Oakland, CA 94612tel 510.271.0900 800.755.3224fax 510.271.0901

Southern California Office6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 425Los Angeles, CA 90048tel 323.939.6790fax 323.939.6791

www.ecovote.org

California League of Conservation Voters

350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 1100Oakland, CA 94612

a d d r e s s s e r v i c e r e q u e s t e d

anderson r-77 5% 10%

arambula i-31 95% 86%

bass D-47 100% 90%

beall D-24 100% 95%

berryhill, b. r-26 5% 24%

this is where to find your district number

123456 AD XX SD XX

Your name

your address

city state zip

Look for your district numbers in the table of scores on pages 26–31 to find out who your legislators are:

Who are my legislators?If your Scorecard has a pre-printed address label:

this is where to find your assembly district number

this is where to find your senate district number

PRSRT STD

U.S. Postage

PAID

San Leandro, CA

Permit #224

2010 legislative year Environmental Scorecard€¦ · The story of the 2010 California Environmental Scorecard is just as much about how we stopped multiple egregious attacks on the

Documents